The 2014 Google tracker—Everything we know Google is working on this year

While some companies pride themselves on secrecy, Google doesn't seem interested in surprises. The future of the company is often proudly demonstrated on a stage in front of hundreds of people or announced to the world via a company acquisition press release. Everything Google mentions publicly is for a reason, and if you just listen, you'll pick up a few hints and get a pretty good idea of what the company is working on.

This post is a collection of all the hints, announcements, and acquisitions we've heard from Google lately, along with some common sense speculation. We're not predicting or guaranteeing that all of these projects will become consumer products in 2014; it's more of a "to-do list" for Google. Like any to-do list, it's not heavy on ETAs—you can complete an item and cross it off the list, or you can procrastinate and let that list item hang around another year. So to prepare for what promises to be a wild year of Google news, here's everything we know about the company's future plans.

A big gaming push

Mobile devices have slowly been eroding the traditional gaming market. Portable gaming systems have been hit especially hard thanks to the proliferation of smartphones. The 3DS and PSP may have better controls and more in-depth games, but to repurpose an old camera adage: the best gaming system is the one you have with you. Everyone carries a cell phone, and when that cell phone is capable of running great-looking, in-depth games, a dedicated gaming system becomes a much harder sell.

Apple and Google both seem interested in leveraging mobile gaming success into a spot in the living room. The smartphone industry's cheap hardware and app-enabled "do everything" mentality could create a compelling living room device. Just as point-and-shoot cameras, MP3 players, handheld gaming systems, and flip phones were casualties in the smartphone revolution, the use case of "home video game console" could be swallowed up by a do-everything set-top box.

With much looser size, heat, and power constraints, a set-top smartphone could be much more powerful than its portable, battery-powered brethren. As the success of the Nintendo Wii proved, fun games and new input devices trump graphics in the mainstream gaming marketplace, and consumers will buy a gaming system if it looks fun enough. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are all grafting smartphone and cable box functionality (apps, multitasking, Web browsers, TV guides) onto a gaming system, but the other possible path would be to put bigger gaming functionality and a TV interface into a smartphone-in-a-box.

A first-party studio

One of the first big hints of Google's gaming ambition came from Noah Falstein, an influential game designer who formerly worked for LucasArts, 3DO, and Dreamworks Interactive. In May of last year, Falstein spilled the beans on Google's upcoming plans when he updated his LinkedIn profile to read "Chief Game Designer at Android Play Studio.”

Google appears to be starting up a game studio of its own, just like how Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft own gaming developers that produce exclusive flagship software for company gaming systems. First-party game developers can be a big boost to a gaming platform by leading by example and helping the platform owner realize the company's vision. Google's Android apps show the rest of the ecosystem how apps should be made, so it only makes sense that Google would want to do the same thing on the gaming side. Google's studio could take advantage of the newest features of Android without having to worry about things like install base or profitability, focusing strictly on demonstrating the newest techniques to the rest of the ecosystem.

If Google does create a game studio, it would actually be its second in-house game developer. The company already owns NianticLabs, the makers of the location-based game Ingress. But that company doesn't fulfill the traditional first-party developer role—NianticLabs seems to be focused on doing its own thing. "Android Play Studio" (Falstein probably meant "Google Play Studio") sounds much more like a flagship first-party studio.

Gaming renovations

Google has been telling developers to prepare for an Android gaming growth spurt as well. The company publicly announced to developers that it would be tripling the number of gaming categories on the Play Store in February 2014.

At Google I/O 2013, Google announced a gaming service back-end called Google Play Games. The device closely mirrors Xbox Live or Apple's Game Center, providing multiplayer matchmaking, achievements, cloud saves, and identity services to game developers. Android also supports game controllers over USB or Bluetooth. In fact, if you grab a USB On-The-Go cable, an Xbox 360 controller will work out of the box for many games.

Game console/set-top box

The Wall Street Journal, typically a publication that's reliable when it comes to Google rumors, has reported that the company is going all out in the gaming space and wants to launch a home gaming console of its own. The console would most likely be similar to the Apple TV, basically a bunch of smartphone parts in a set-top box form factor. Android's ability to adapt to different screen sizes means that Google could launch with an all-encompassing store right off the bat.

Google set-top box rumblings have been going on for a while. We first heard of the project when the Journal reported that Google was secretly showing off a prototype at CES 2013. The report described Hangouts video conferencing as a core feature. The device had a video camera and a motion sensor—presumably for Kinect-like controls—and could run Android apps. The paper originally pegged the device as being announced at Google I/O 2013, but it also said the device may have been scrapped in favor of the Chromecast. I/O 2013 came and went, and we never heard a peep about the box.

One of Google's recent moves that could help with a Kinect-style interface is the acquisition of Flutter, a company that specialized in gesture recognition. While the Kinect recognizes gestures using $150 worth of cameras, infrared fields, and processors, Flutter could detect hand gestures using only a stock webcam. Of course, Flutter wasn't nearly as robust as the Kinect, but it was surprisingly capable while using a minimal amount of hardware. A thumb gesture left or right would trigger "previous" or "next" commands, and a "hand up" gesture would do play and pause. That's not nearly enough to control a television interface, but with a little more hardware, the Flutter team could probably come up with a way to navigate a UI.

We've also heard a report (subscription required) from the same Journal writers (now at The Information) claiming that a set-top-box called the "Nexus TV" is in the works—likely the same device as the game console. The Information stated the device is on track to launch in the first half of this year. While Google TV has hung around for a few years, Google has never taken the project seriously or put a ton of resources behind it. The Google TV folks never decided on a decent input device, and the software design is nowhere near the standard set by other Google interfaces—Google TV is one of the ugliest products Google makes. A "Nexus TV" would basically be a revamped, rebranded version of Google TV.

Google's only successful living room product is the Chromecast, a $35 HDMI dongle that provides easy streaming from Chrome and a variety of Android apps. The problem with the Chromecast is that it is strictly a streaming stick—it can't run Android apps, and it lacks the power to do any sort of client-side graphics rendering. If Google really wants to take over the living room, it will need something more powerful.

Chrome gaming

Android is not necessarily the quintessential gaming platform for Google. Google I/O 2013 featured a ton of gaming demos, and most of them were actually running on Chrome (often Chrome running on Android, but still). Thanks to HTML5 technologies like WebGL, browsers are now able to pump out some serious graphics using your device's GPU. If you don't believe that a browser can be a serious gaming platform, check out Epic's Unreal Engine 3 running in a browser. Granted, this demo was made by Epic and Mozilla, but the demo and WebGL run just fine on Chrome. Google showed off a WebGL game at Google I/O, but it didn't bring in the heavy-hitting game designers at Epic.

Google has quietly been building up Chrome's gaming foundation: Google Play Games, the matchmaking multiplayer service, also runs on Chrome, and Chrome has full gamepad support. Most of Google's efforts in the Chrome gaming space have demonstrated the ability to sync multiple devices together using websockets. One demo showed a simple racetrack that spanned multiple Android devices running Chrome. Several otherdemos have shown Chrome running on a mobile device synced to a desktop version of Chrome—the desktop acted as the main display and the mobile device acted as a game controller.

Our guess is that Chrome isn't quite ready for prime time gaming yet, although an Android TV box would be the best of both worlds. It could run native gaming apps and run whatever Chrome-enabled gaming craziness Google comes up with.

Ron Amadeo
Ron is the Reviews Editor at Ars Technica, where he specializes in Android OS and Google products. He is always on the hunt for a new gadget and loves to rip things apart to see how they work. Emailron.amadeo@arstechnica.com//Twitter@RonAmadeo

Google's only successful living room product is the Chromecast, a $35 HDMI dongle that provides easy streaming from Chrome and a variety of Android apps. The problem with the Chromecast is that it is strictly a streaming stick—it can't run Android apps, and it lacks the power to do any sort of client-side graphics rendering. If Google really wants to take over the living room, it will need something more powerful.

There already is a way of turning one of those Android sticks into a faux pas Chromacast. Best of both worlds.

Quote:

Google basically is the Internet—estimates put the company at 25 percent of North America's Internet traffic.

I've never understood why people are so awed when they see a high fidelity game running in a browser. It's not like the browser is doing any work...it's just providing a surface for an underlying engine (e.g. Unreal or Unity) to output to. Sure it's a slightly more convenient way to start a game (maybe) but it's hardly revolutionary.

I've never understood why people are so awed when they see a high fidelity game running in a browser. It's not like the browser is doing any work...it's just providing a surface for an underlying engine (e.g. Unreal or Unity) to output to. Sure it's a slightly more convenient way to start a game (maybe) but it's hardly revolutionary.

So you mean playing such a game regardless of OS platform isn't revolutionary? That's how I see it anyhow.

As far as the Nexus 5 launcher thing goes, they've been rolling out the new google search app which is the new launcher or something. I haven't tried it cause, well, CM already had the functionality baked in

I think the onscreen keyboard in chromeOS has some other uses as well.. Considering the upcoming chromebox devices have VESA mounts on them I think Google has digital signage in its sights - and that makes perfect sense for an advertising company. I feel we will see a push in the digital signage market this year as well. The pieces are all there, great managed OS, good touchscreen support, and the advertising power to pull it all together...

EDIT: Not to mention they also just released an HTML5 based advertising design platform...

I've never understood why people are so awed when they see a high fidelity game running in a browser. It's not like the browser is doing any work...it's just providing a surface for an underlying engine (e.g. Unreal or Unity) to output to. Sure it's a slightly more convenient way to start a game (maybe) but it's hardly revolutionary.

So you mean playing such a game regardless of OS platform isn't revolutionary? That's how I see it anyhow.

But the underlying game engine is what makes that possible, not the browser. The browser is just a delivery mechanism. Which is really all it's ever been. Html 5 is changing that I suppose but as far as I know it's not going to be replacing Unity any time soon.

Nest is one of the few companies in the "Internet of things" and "smart home" space actually delivering purchasable products, and that basically makes it an industry leader.

People keep saying things like this but it's nonsense. Nest has a couple good products, it has a good reputation, and very good press. But there are dozens of companies producing home automation products with the possibility of internet connectivity. Not to mention new Kickstarters frequently. This is a crowded space in my opinion.

If Google succeeds here, it won't be due to lack of competition. It will be because of marketing, because of lazy tech writers, and most importantly getting the UI and installation right. In my opinion, they will have to work with existing automation protocols as well.

I still won't buy it, because I don't want Google seeing what I do in my house, but that won't keep everyone away.

Besides selling the cars to individuals, Google has also considered the idea of a "Robo-Taxi"—imagine Uber (a Google Ventures investment) without the drivers. It's illegal to not have a driver behind the wheel of a self-driving car, however, so it's unclear how Google expects to ever operate a robo-taxi service.

What I imagine they would do first is partner with a company that operates very large destination travel sites, with very large private properties. That may loophole the laws, by not driving on public streets. It also provides the opportunity for a very large number of people to experience the technology, which will make it much easier to get it accepted.

It's interesting to compare how upcoming work is publicised by Google, and how it is under a shroud of secrecy at Apple. Google seem unconcerned by competitors being aware, while Apple seem to believe surprise is a competitive advantage.

I see Google throwing a lot of projects at the wall, to see which ones stick. I believe Apple do the same, but you never hear about the ones that failed. In both cases, I reckon the majority will never come to fruition, but the ones that do could well be amazing.

I've never understood why people are so awed when they see a high fidelity game running in a browser. It's not like the browser is doing any work...it's just providing a surface for an underlying engine (e.g. Unreal or Unity) to output to. Sure it's a slightly more convenient way to start a game (maybe) but it's hardly revolutionary.

So you mean playing such a game regardless of OS platform isn't revolutionary? That's how I see it anyhow.

But the underlying game engine is what makes that possible, not the browser. The browser is just a delivery mechanism. Which is really all it's ever been. Html 5 is changing that I suppose but as far as I know it's not going to be replacing Unity any time soon.

... But the game engine is written in a format the browser can understand, and it still works, as opposed to compiled C code that most Unreal engines run as. The browser is not simply another window. If I coded up a version of Doom in Excel, would you say "so what, excel is just a viewport"? Granted there is a lot of help with canvas, but you're understating the significance of the unreal engine working in a browser. And Unity? I think they're shooting beyond that. I don't have a Unity compatibility layer on my desktop, but I have a browser.

I've never understood why people are so awed when they see a high fidelity game running in a browser. It's not like the browser is doing any work...it's just providing a surface for an underlying engine (e.g. Unreal or Unity) to output to. Sure it's a slightly more convenient way to start a game (maybe) but it's hardly revolutionary.

So you mean playing such a game regardless of OS platform isn't revolutionary? That's how I see it anyhow.

But the underlying game engine is what makes that possible, not the browser. The browser is just a delivery mechanism. Which is really all it's ever been. Html 5 is changing that I suppose but as far as I know it's not going to be replacing Unity any time soon.

... But the game engine is written in a format the browser can understand, and it still works, as opposed to compiled C code that most Unreal engines run as. The browser is not simply another window. If I coded up a version of Doom in Excel, would you say "so what, excel is just a viewport"? Granted there is a lot of help with canvas, but you're understating the significance of the unreal engine working in a browser. And Unity? I think they're shooting beyond that. I don't have a Unity compatibility layer on my desktop, but I have a browser.

Chrome is the biggest trojan platform out... If Google can gain developer traction with the chrome platform it would be incredibly disruptive. Not to mention other players would be struggling to regain control.

I've never understood why people are so awed when they see a high fidelity game running in a browser. It's not like the browser is doing any work...it's just providing a surface for an underlying engine (e.g. Unreal or Unity) to output to. Sure it's a slightly more convenient way to start a game (maybe) but it's hardly revolutionary.

So you mean playing such a game regardless of OS platform isn't revolutionary? That's how I see it anyhow.

But the underlying game engine is what makes that possible, not the browser. The browser is just a delivery mechanism. Which is really all it's ever been. Html 5 is changing that I suppose but as far as I know it's not going to be replacing Unity any time soon.

... But the game engine is written in a format the browser can understand, and it still works, as opposed to compiled C code that most Unreal engines run as. The browser is not simply another window. If I coded up a version of Doom in Excel, would you say "so what, excel is just a viewport"? Granted there is a lot of help with canvas, but you're understating the significance of the unreal engine working in a browser. And Unity? I think they're shooting beyond that. I don't have a Unity compatibility layer on my desktop, but I have a browser.

Your post prompted me to do some further reading and I now realize that I was incorrectly lumping Unity and UDK together in the way they work. I did not realize UDK has been implemented using HTML5 and is not a plugin at all. I see now how that is something new.

The biggest reason it's not really creepy: You can always get your data OUT!

Google had always led the way with being able to export your data from their services. Takeout isn't perfect, but it's a far cry from most services, many of which actually claim to own your data (check those EULAs!), let alone give you a reasonable way to get it back.

I stopped using Evernote because I couldn't find an easy way to export my notes. I think the last version I used of the Windows app had an export function, but it was a very strange format, not simple text files and images as I expected (I don't even think I had anything but text notes anyway).

Google lets me have all my Gmails, photos, G+ posts (and +1's even), search history, location history; pretty much anything I consider "mine" that actually lives on their servers, pretty much whenever I want. Textual things are either single plain text files in a reasonable directory structure, or reasonably organized JSON objects, and binary things are either as they were uploaded or reasonable standard formats (JPEG, GIF, KML, GPX, etc)

It's a large part of why I stick with Google. They're not trying to keep my in by making it practically impossible to take my stuff and leave; in fact they're continually making it easier to take my stuff out. Instead, they're trying to keep me in by just making things I want to use.

I'm not so sure about cell phones being the best because gaming platform because "they're the one you have with you," but rather "you already own a cell phone, so why bother buying another gaming system?"

The reason is battery life. If I want to play a high quality game, I can't play it when I'm out and about, that would drain the battery too quickly. I have to be at home. Dedicated gaming handhelds don't have that issue. They've got much larger battery capacities than smartphones and you can play them till the battery runs out. You don't want your phone running out of battery, do you?

So it's really an issue of whether it's worth it spending all that extra money so that you can play high quality games while you're out and about. Chances are, most people won't. Of course, there are people that would buy a handheld to play their favourite game franchise, but those people are hardcore gamers. We don't make up the majority of people out there.

It's interesting to compare how upcoming work is publicised by Google, and how it is under a shroud of secrecy at Apple. Google seem unconcerned by competitors being aware, while Apple seem to believe surprise is a competitive advantage.

I see Google throwing a lot of projects at the wall, to see which ones stick. I believe Apple do the same, but you never hear about the ones that failed. In both cases, I reckon the majority will never come to fruition, but the ones that do could well be amazing.

I never thought of it this way, but it does serve a purpose as it prevents other people from patenting the same idea much later when it's feasible and commercially ready, and then suing you.

Sooo... what percentage of these will be cancelled or shut down within the year? Given their track record, I'd be surprised if more than about 20% of these make it to 2015.

Gotta love the Ars voting system, anonymous haters get to downvote an attributed comment which is a completely valid opinion. Cowards get rewarded, people not into groupthink get publicly humiliated. It really encourages debate (that's sarcasm).

/rant.

On topic: I think it's fantastic Google is prepared to invest and divest. If it sticks to the wall it's a keeper. If it slides to the ground, never mind, move on try something new. It's pretty clear Google is making strategic investments following their (current) plan. Consumer goods. Browser=the operating system. Android=Google in control, carriers and OEMs on the outer.

I've never understood why people are so awed when they see a high fidelity game running in a browser. It's not like the browser is doing any work...it's just providing a surface for an underlying engine (e.g. Unreal or Unity) to output to. Sure it's a slightly more convenient way to start a game (maybe) but it's hardly revolutionary.

So you mean playing such a game regardless of OS platform isn't revolutionary? That's how I see it anyhow.

But the underlying game engine is what makes that possible, not the browser. The browser is just a delivery mechanism. Which is really all it's ever been. Html 5 is changing that I suppose but as far as I know it's not going to be replacing Unity any time soon.

The revolutionary part is that a game using a c-language framework that builds graphics using OpenGL can be compiled into a processor-agnostic kind of language and then delivered over the web to almost any machine. Sort of like Flash, but far more powerful, without plugins, and without the dependence on Adobe (or Google, for that matter). And it can take advantage of a lot of already written c-code frameworks and games.

I'd rather be spied on than have all my personal information sold to advertisers.

To tell the truth, your personal information is not being sold to anybody, it is Google's personal treasure. Advertisers tell google who they think they want, and based on that and on its own knowledge of you (which it does have, as it watches you browse and it reads all your email), it serves YOU the ads. When YOU click on the ad is when you reveal yourself to the advertiser.

So yes, the program that serves you your gmail analyzes the text and keeps a database of your activity, but this knowledge of yourself is sandboxed and hidden in the bowels of Google.

That's not a fair grouping: Google's off in it's own category - out of everyone who tracks me, the only company I know that will harass, lie and attempt to manipulate me if I don't do what they want, is Google.

Interesting that the author compares Google to Buy'N'Large. I think he's committed a crude blunder. It would be more apt to compare them to Weiland-Yutani. They start off interested in projects that help humanity, their leaders are fairly charismatic and personable, and in 200 years or so, they discover and unleash devastating biological superweapons across the galaxy.

I could see this version of Google becoming a reality. Especially if things go wrong with Calico.

Sooo... what percentage of these will be cancelled or shut down within the year? Given their track record, I'd be surprised if more than about 20% of these make it to 2015.

Gotta love the Ars voting system, anonymous haters get to downvote an attributed comment which is a completely valid opinion. Cowards get rewarded, people not into groupthink get publicly humiliated. It really encourages debate (that's sarcasm).

It gets downvoted because it's a pointless comment that adds nothing to the debate. I'm quite happy to vote for comments which I don't agree with as long as they're relevant, articulate and thought provoking.